legal news


Register | Forgot Password

WELLS FARGO BANK v. CRAIG SCHAUER

WELLS FARGO BANK v. CRAIG SCHAUER
07:26:2006

WELLS FARGO BANK v. CRAIG SCHAUER






Filed 7/24/06




CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION




IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA




SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT




DIVISION FOUR
















Estate of FOAD DEHGANI-FARD, Deceased.



B184461


(Los Angeles County


Super. Ct. No. SP000034)



WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. as Executor, etc.,


Petitioner and Respondent,


v.


CRAIG SCHAUER, as Trustee, etc., et al.,


Objectors and Respondents;


THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,


Claimant and Appellant.




APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, John H. Reid, Judge. Reversed.


Holland & Knight; Luce Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, John T. Rogers, Jr., Nelson J. Handy and Stacie Polashuk Nelson for Claimant and Appellant.


No appearance for Petitioner and Respondent and for Objectors and Respondents Jacob Dehgani and Farhah Moallem.


Morris & Associates, James G. Morris and Phunphilas Viravan for Objector and Respondent Craig Schauer.


The Regents of the University of California challenges the order of the Probate Court allocating to the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) a portion of the liability for income tax, and interest on unpaid income tax, paid by the Estate of Foad Dehgani Fard on after-discovered assets.[1] Appellant claims that it should not be liable for any portion of the income tax liability because as an educational institution, UCLA is a charitable organization exempt from income taxation on its share of the assets, and that in its tax returns, the estate claimed and received a partial exemption based on UCLA's charitable status. We agree, and reverse the order.


FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY


Foad Dehgani-Fard died in 1990, leaving an estate in excess of $1,000,000. Following a will dispute, a settlement was reached establishing four residuary beneficiaries. Under this settlement, decedent's wife would receive 50 percent of the estate, UCLA would receive 37.5 percent, and two relatives would receive 6.25 percent each. An order settling the account was entered in November 1993 (the 1993 order). It provided for distribution of any after-discovered assets in the same percentages: â€





Description Where probate order provided for after-discovered assets of decedent to be distributed proportionally among four residual beneficiaries. Also including educational institution with tax-exempt status and executor claimed charitable income tax deduction for portion of after-discovered income attributable to institution's share of estate, institution was exempt from liability for income tax attributable to its portion of after-discovered assets, and trial court abused its discretion in failing to allocate tax liability only among other three beneficiaries.
Rating
3/5 based on 1 vote.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale